Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. ASHOK S.KINAGI, J
SMT DULCIN CECELIA MATHIAS – Appellant
Versus
SMT IRENE D'SOUZA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging a decree in second appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. facts regarding property ownership and claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. reappraisal of evidence in appellate review. (Para 8 , 11 , 17) |
| 4. arguments on errors committed by the first appellate court. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. judgment based on evidence and adverse inference. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of lower court's ruling. (Para 20) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants seeking for relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing trespass into plaint 'A' schedule property from digging, and removing mud from the said property and from removing the compound wall situated in the said property. Also, for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore plaint A schedule property to their original position, and for damages. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. The road passes thro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
